Revisiting the Community of Inquiry Framework: July 9-22, 2012https://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/view.php?f=2836
Revisiting the Community of Inquiry Framework: July 9-22, 2012
Facilitators: Cindy Xin and Sarah Haavind
Since its original publication, Garrison, Anderson and Archer’s (2000) “Critical Inquiry in A Text-based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education” has inspired a great many researchers and advanced our understanding of online learning and online education. In recent years, a number of reviews of the Community of Inquiry framework (CoI) have been published, including, Garrison and Arbaugh’s (2007), Swan and Ice (2010). Cindy Xin, author of a recently-published critique (Xin, 2012) will be with us to explain her argument and, together with Sarah Haavind, facilitate a discussion reconsidering the CoI and its recent reviews and critiques. By provoking new thoughts and possibly constructing new theories and methods, we hope to further our understanding of online discussion in particular, and online education in general.
References / Background Reading
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., &amp; Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87−105.
Garrison D. R. &amp; Arbaugh, J.B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172.
Swan, K., &amp; Ice, P. (2010). The community of inquiry framework ten years later: Introduction to the special issue. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 1-4.
Xin, C. (2012). A critique of the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Distance Education, 26(1).
Website: Community of Inquiry Project
GEN Seminar Series: The Community of Inquiry Project (2001 Archive)Moodleen(c) 2019 SCoPE - BCcampus Learning + Teachinghttps://scope.bccampus.ca/theme/image.php/boost/core/1567009021/i/rsssitelogomoodlehttps://scope.bccampus.ca
14035Re: until next time...https://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16723&parent=68648
Tue, 24 Jul 2012 05:41:56 GMTby Cindy Xin. &nbsp;<p>Thank you Sarah for your thoughtful acknowledgment to everyone. I want to also thank Andrew Feenberg who posted after your closing comment. I had many great discussions with Andrew while writing my paper. His writings on online education and technology have been an inspiration for me.
The timing of this seminar is somewhat unfortunate given people’s summer schedules. We didn’t get a chance to fully explore the ideas generated and questions raised here, but I hope we will continue this conversation elsewhere online and offline. I also want to thank Sylvia for being the steward for this valuable community, SCoPE, and for getting us together here.
Hope you all have a great summer.
Cindy</p>https://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16723&parent=68648Re: a summary of my critique of CoIhttps://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16719&parent=68647
Mon, 23 Jul 2012 21:08:26 GMTby Andrew Feenberg. &nbsp;<p><p>I too am interested in this discussion. I started doing online classes before there was any theoretical framework at all. We early adopters had to think through our practice as we improvised it. One framework I was acquainted with that I quickly rejected was the distinction between process and content. This framework was associated with the idea that you could give students readings or videos from famous people and then have "process facilitators" handle the interactions. It quickly became clear that conferences without leadership often failed and that leadership by someone who had no subject matter expertise was not appropriate in education. Yet the process/content framework is still an almost instinctual reaction to educational technology. I wonder if the COI model carries on this unfortunate tradition with its distinction between the social side and the cognitive side. Maybe that was not the intention of the creators of the model, but isn't that how it is mostly understood?</p></p>https://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16719&parent=68647until next time...https://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16723&parent=68644
Mon, 23 Jul 2012 03:41:07 GMTby Sarah Haavind. &nbsp;<p><p>Cindy, Syl and I have been around this virtual block long enough -- as have so many of you! -- to know that all the learning afforded by our presence in this seminar is not evident here in the pages of our brief, albeit engaging discussion. For myself, I will say that agreeing to collaborate on this event was a great way to gain a deeper understanding of Cindy's challenging critique of a framework that has helped so many of us, including myself, to "see" the patterns of dialogue in asynchronous learning networks, and to draw useful conclusions about effective practice. I hope our forum was beneficial for others as well, beyond those who actively participated.</p>
<p>That said, a major thank you to Curt, Nick, Barbara and David for jumping in, and to Cindy for crafting such a thoughtful article that clearly advances our collective understanding of how to foster high quality communities of inquiry.</p>
<p>Sylvia mentioned some messages she received from others who sent their regrets -- thank you to those thoughtful colleagues as well! And most of all, thank you Sylvia, our unfailing Scope Coordinator, for organizing this opportunity.</p>
<p>Warmest regards to all,</p>
<p>Sarah</p></p>https://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16723&parent=68644Re: 30 ideas....20 from b4 and 10 more from like now...https://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16721&parent=68643
Sat, 21 Jul 2012 00:23:39 GMTby Curt Bonk. &nbsp;<p><p>No Cindy, I do not think it has that level of specificity. But perhaps your framework does. :-)</p></p>https://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16721&parent=68643from the what to the howhttps://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16722&parent=68642
Fri, 20 Jul 2012 19:23:36 GMTby Sarah Haavind. &nbsp;<p><p>I have kept my ear to the ground these last eleven days, listening with anticipation for which directions this richly pre-loaded dialogue might point us in this open environment.</p>
<p>David jump-started us with his observation: <em>our students expect more and would already be yawning in a discussion environment like this. </em>Curt followed up with a plethora of stimulating ideas for situating asynchronous, text-based dialogue within a larger, more widely orchestrated course arena with his 30+ ideas and counting. Fabulous!</p>
<p>Nick mulled over the inherent concepts of community, openness and the goal of fostering a<em> disposition towards learning and each other </em>questioning the concepts and wondering out loud whether we have or have not yet found <em>a cultural format for thinking together globally and indicating an intended disposition towards each other (as much as towards any particular content)</em>. He asks: <em>Does social media point us to other 'dispositional' and 'design' alternatives?</em></p>
<p>In my current work I believe I am building on that helpful question by combining a social (ning) network platform with more formal professional development for teachers. They do their own PD independently, using the collaborative social environment to support and scaffold their personal professional learning. It is sort of a closed Classroom 2.0 with specific learning targets for improving teaching effectiveness – but open design, as far as participants deciding what to do and how to do it. We still include asynchronous discussion forums among other synchronous, video, links to resources, etc. for pursuing deepened knowledge co-construction. The jury is still out, I think, on whether social media can support real work getting done more fruitfully and effectively (and engagingly) than academic papers and discussion forums (David quietly yawns in my ear).</p>
<p>At my first read of Cindy’s critique, I resonated with her insight about the difference between identifying presences broadly and more specifically considering multiple “communicative functions” in order to<em> “examine the dynamics of the dialogue in terms of how it engages the participants at each moment and develops the subject matter over time</em> (page 4, printerFriendly Xin). Clearly the attention CoI has drawn since it was first presented alludes to its usefulness for seeing learning dynamics in broad terms. As Cindy notes: <em>The CoI encourages one to think about what a successful conference would entail, it does not adequately account for how to get there or make it happen</em> (p. 5). The “what” indeed helped, but now for the “how.” As Barbara notes, <em>It’s a deep dive!</em> and then she wonders, “<em>how does the CoI help me to understand and explain my own behaviours in online discussion</em>?”</p>
<p>That made me think of parallel processing, right? Syl suggested we try using the Marginalia to code our own experience in this seminar. Any takers? In the spirit of Gadamer’s (p. 6) insight noted by Cindy that <em>‘play’ lies at the heart of every conversation…(and that the) aim is not so much winning as improving one’s game (and that movement) is not tied to any goal that would bring it to an end</em>” I want to add a term. Cindy tells us that all dialogue is inherently social. Nick points to the open disposition towards learning and each other that keeps the dialogue “ball” in play. When communicative functions (CFs) include weaving, recognition, prompting, these seem to me to indicate the “hows” of collaborative presence, or continuous improvement by playing in a way that builds, extends, mulls over, queries, refers – everyone facilitating everyone’s learning all the time. Our remaining days together are just a few; I am hopeful that just a few more balls cross our cognitive court. Thanks for so many rich insights here already…</p>
<p>~Sarah</p></p>https://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16722&parent=68642Re: 30 ideas....20 from b4 and 10 more from like now...https://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16721&parent=68641
Fri, 20 Jul 2012 08:01:27 GMTby Cindy Xin. &nbsp;<p><p>For those who know Curt, I believe we can all agree that Curt is once again being his true self, generous with his ideas. Curt, you have given us many useful techniques to apply and much food for thought. My question is: Does CoI provide a framework to explain the list of things we know?</p>
<p>Cindy</p></p>https://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16721&parent=68641Re: a summary of my critique of CoIhttps://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16719&parent=68640
Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:55:16 GMTby Cindy Xin. &nbsp;<p><p>Barb, you raise some important questions for us: What is the explanatory efficacy of CoI? What are its theoretical underpinning and its assumptions? I really wish its three authors were here to help us understand. Unfortunate, we learned that none of them was available to join us. Related to your question, you also ask how does CoI help you understand your own behaviors in online discussion. I think this is a question that we can all attempt to answer, so let me redirect your question to all of us here and those who are listening in: Does CoI help you explain what you did in the past in online discussion – and if so, in what way? Knowing the framework, has it in any way guided you or informed how you conduct yourself in online discussion? </p>
<p>Cindy</p></p>https://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16719&parent=6864030 ideas....20 from b4 and 10 more from like now...https://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16721&parent=68635
Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:55:41 GMTby Curt Bonk. &nbsp;<p><p>Hi Sylvia, Cindy, Sarah, and everyone...</p>
<p>Yes, I agree that the article by Garrison, Anderson and Archer’s (2000) “Critical Inquiry in A Text-based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education” has made a huge impact in the online education space. I responded in this forum back in 2001 with 20 related takeaways from my own research. See below. I listed them again. And I added 10 more a few minutes ago. See what you think...</p>
<p>I am responding to Randy Garrison's question, "How little do we really know of text-based, asynchronous, online learning?"</p>
<p>I think we know a great deal.</p>
<p>1. We know that students are extremely task focused. It is difficult to get them to be social even thought that helps foster community.</p>
<p>2. We know that some shy students "speak up" in the async communication when they might not in class.</p>
<p>3. We know that students expect fairly prompt feedback from their instructor and that as an instructor, it is hard to respond to all.</p>
<p>4. We know that building on online community is difficult if not impossible in an online class.</p>
<p>5. We know that critical thinking is scant in some activities (field reflections--where students tell stories) and higher in structured activities focused around content.</p>
<p>6. We know that global collaborations can enhance the interactions, the level of critical reflection, the motivation of students, etc.</p>
<p>7. We know that async discussions are permanent but that students tend to go on to the next topic and not revisit an earlier one.</p>
<p>8. We know that the first response to a post make a great deal of difference in terms of the amount and quality of discussion (oops, I am the first response).</p>
<p>9. We know that there are too many of us creating new discourse and transcript analysis schemes.</p>
<p>10. We know that students get confused online and need careful task structuring.</p>
<p>11. We know that some students will procrastinate and then complain that no one responded to them. We also know that we need procrastination screening devices so as to limit the number of procrastinators in an online course (such instruments are hidden as online learning readiness questionnaires, but they mean the same thing).</p>
<p>12. We know that with proper pedagogical structuring, students can generate a lot of information to read and respond to online.</p>
<p>13. We know that there are cross-cultural differences in terms of the social aspects and expectancies online.</p>
<p>14. We know that instructors take on many roles in the online discourse--pedagogical/intellectual, managerial, social, and technological.</p>
<p>15. We know that instructors who do not model good discussion practices have poor experiences online.</p>
<p>16. We know that when instructors dominate online discourse, students will wait in the weeds for them to tell them what to do.</p>
<p>17. We know that effective instructors do not lecture too much online. They offer feedback, coach, facilitate, question, redirect, push to explore, etc.</p>
<p>18. We know that students tend not to back up their claims online.Modeling from peers at other institutions helps.</p>
<p>19. We know that there are differences between async discussions (which are task focused and one way) and synchronous ones (which are more social-oriented and interactive).</p>
<p>20. We know that discussion dies out over time and that the later responses often have little in common with the original post or comment.</p>
<p>Of course, there is more that we know. Right?</p>
<p>= = = = = = = = = = =</p>
<p>Here are 10 more from 2012...</p>
<p>Sylvia Currie reminded me that above post today. I enjoyed rereading it. I used to be more brilliant in the past I think...Smile.</p>
<p>Here are 10 more...</p>
<p>21. Discussions as discussions are not enough (Part 1). Students need to see the relevance of online discussions. They do not want to just be going through the motions. They need something to excite or captivate them. This can be done through many techniques--links to news articles, experts coming in to offer advice, team competitions, cross-class or cross-cultural commenting, etc.</p>
<p>22. Discussions as discussions are not enough (Part 2). You might have students extend their postings into a class glossary or term list. Summarize, recap, extend, etc., the posts is vital. One student might be charged with this weekly or the entire class can do this throughout the course.</p>
<p>23. Discussions as discussions are not enough (Part 3). We can now juxtapose text against video. Instructors need to find ways to augment discussions with tools for visually representing knowledge. Tools like Gliffy or Mindomo for Bubbl.us for concept mapping or mind mapping; tools like Popplet for hyperlinking knowledge and terms to online video, text, and other resources; tools like Wordle for displaying content in a post; tools like MeetingWords for collaborative text editing from the discussion; or Wikis, etc. can all help learners dual code their knowledge.</p>
<p>24. Discussions as discussions are not enough (Part 4). If the course if blended, having students print out their asynchronous discussion posts and blogs and bring them to class can foster reflection. Have students circle key concepts in their posts or those of their peers. If the course is fully online, they can nominate a set of key terms in their discussion forums or blog posts that they might want to expand, list in a glossary, or link to other resources.</p>
<p>25. Discussions as discussions are not enough (Part 5). Have students form teams around their discussion posts and then post top 10 takeaways as a group. If a FTF class, have them create mini-posters of the discussions or research recaps from the articles read.</p>
<p>26. Content or questions from a synchronous webinar or session can be archived and serve as an asynchronous discussion prompt or reflection activity.</p>
<p>27. Anytime you can thoughtfully combine sync and async discussion, it will be a more powerful experience than either one alone. However, async prior to the sync is particularly engaging since students will display sets of biases and overgeneralize their learning prior to meeting a scholar or expert live.</p>
<p>28. Synchronous discussions and chats have become more prominent during the past decade as bandwidth has expanded and learners have become more savvy. They are also used to sync chats with Skype, Facebook, and other technologies.</p>
<p>29. Much learning can occur at the microlevel. Bursts of knowledge can be shared in Twitter, Facebook status updates, and chats in Skype. Effective asynchronous discussions can build on those short, pointed comments, while expanding on them in ways unforeseen at the start of course or unit. Use those quick topical comments in twitter or in a chat for more expansive reflections and discussions.</p>
<p>30. Discussion needs to be personal. Find ways to foster linkages between group discussions and personal blog reflections. Critical friend feedback on blog posts is one mechanism for that to occur. Another way is for learners to recap key points of weekly personal blog posts in group discussion forums. Still another way is to use a collaboration tool like MeetingWords wherein learners can highlight their respective contributions with different colors.</p>
<p>See what you think. Please add to my list. Thanks.</p>
<p>curt </p></p>https://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16721&parent=68635Promised archivehttps://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16718&parent=68633
Thu, 12 Jul 2012 19:02:39 GMTby Sylvia Currie. &nbsp;<p><p>Here is the full text of the archive from the 2001 public seminar with Terry Anderson, Walter Archer, Randy Garrison, and Liam Rourke that I mentioned in my welcome post. </p>
<p><a title="Page" href="http://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/page/view.php?id=9000">GEN Seminar Series: The Community of Inquiry Project (Archive)</a></p></p>https://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16718&parent=68633Re: a summary of my critique of CoIhttps://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16719&parent=68632
Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:03:56 GMTby Barbara Berry. &nbsp;<p><p>Hi Cindy and Everyone,</p>
<p>I am very pleased that you are kickstarting this conversation on the CoI framework. It's a deep dive!</p>
<p>I am jumping in after skimming the materials and now re-reading them in the hopes that I can contribute something of value. My own experience with this framework is "light", meaning, I have not studied it carefully. although, like all frameworks, it's worth examining closely especially since it's been 12 years and so much work has been done in relation to it.</p>
<p>Cindy, I like your paper very much. In particular, it affords a new way of looking at the CoI and provoking thought. I really like your ideas: i) "online discussion is a communication phenomenon"; ii) it is inherently social yielding a "matrix" that sets the conditions for ongoing engagement and iii) it is a live act, a performance if you will and the game metaphor and game theory allows us to examine the "to and fro" that occurs in online discussion.</p>
<p>David, as always, the characters are rallying for the "game" : ) I like the fact that you have introduced the notions (don't let me put words in your mouth as they are mine but we may be on the same page here) of historical, cultural context, and the "situativity" of this framework in relation to what was happening then and now. </p>
<p>One of my own observations and questions thus far have to do with the experience of the learner, the lurker, the non-participants and "peripheral" participants who are in the shadows of the big words? Perhaps this was not the original intent but, how can these folk not be considered especially in the context of formal, higher ed, course using online discussion? Now, I am wondering how does the CoI help me to understand and explain my own behaviours in online discussion? Other questions have to do with the explanatory efficacy of this original CoI framework? I love theory so I am wondering about the theoretical underpinnings. The concepts and language are also heavy with assumptions and ideas and on it goes......</p>
<p>looking forward to the "game" ; )</p>
<p>cheers,</p>
<p>Barb</p></p>https://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16719&parent=68632marginal noteshttps://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16719&parent=68631
Wed, 11 Jul 2012 05:35:40 GMTby Cindy Xin. &nbsp;<p><p>I'm not sure whether anyone sees the annotations/marginal notes Syvlia and I added to the posts. If you don't see them, select Shared Annotations from the dropdown list at the upper right corner. The annotation feature is buggy for Moodle 2.0, for example, the red boxes with an exclamation mark inside shouldn't be there, and a more serious bug - you can't delete an anotaton right now once it is created. However, it is convenient if you want to add a twitter-like comment on the side. We work on fixing the bugs as we discover them. </p>
<p>Cindy</p></p>https://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16719&parent=68631Re: a summary of my critique of CoIhttps://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16719&parent=68630
Wed, 11 Jul 2012 05:17:39 GMTby Cindy Xin. &nbsp;<p><p>David,</p>
<p>Thank you for being the first to respond. In the seminar description, we said that “we hope to further our understanding of online discussion in particular, and online education in general.” I didn’t know how soon we will go beyond online discussion, now I know. Let me quote you:</p>
<p>“Clearly the environment we are currently using is an artifact of the old days in which online discussion formats began. It as if the world of the academic paper and online discussions forums of 2001 are mirrored here. I think our students expect more and would already be yawning in a discussion environment like this.”</p>
<p>I have a couple of reactions: First not everything old is out-of-date. You are not, of course, saying this, but you provoke a question – Do online discussion forums like this one still have a place in online education with today’s students? If so, what is it? Second, I agree that today’s students are expecting more, but more what? Technical features and tools? Interaction with teachers? Or more ways of interacting with teachers? What about more intellectual rigor? More time to study? More hard work? Are these on their wish list?</p>
<p>No matter what the students expect, I’m with you on the need to meet them where they are. At the same time we need to bring them to places where we expect them to be and grow. I know you would agree that dialogue is essential part of learning, as Sylvia suggested in the marginal notes. Does this mean, at least sometimes, that they need to experience forums like this?</p>
<p>Cindy</p></p>https://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16719&parent=68630Re: a summary of my critique of CoIhttps://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16719&parent=68629
Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:16:44 GMTby Nicholas Bowskill. &nbsp;<p><p> </p>
<p>Dear Cindy,</p>
<p>This is a huge topic isn't it? And an interesting one too. It's difficult to know where to start but thanks for making some marks in the sand to get us placed.</p>
<p>There are a number of terms that we're using here any one of which could be the subject of a forum/seminar. I mention them to try and help me think some of them through as much as anything.</p>
<p>Communities is becoming a word used in many different ways. I've worked on online courses as a learning community. It was a defined knowable group of people who were mutually supportive of each other's learning. But this is also a term used for evolving groups that are more distributed in terms of time and places. Scope for example and more recently the idea of MOOCs etc.</p>
<p>What comes out of that particular term is a sense of the facilitation of a certain 'disposition' towards learning and towards each other. That is sometimes invoked by tutors and course designers as a way of signalling a kind of culture that is being anticipated. That might be distinct from the kind of culture that may be suggested by a more 'instructional' approach, for example whilst still being a learning design tool. </p>
<p>In that sense the popularity of the term 'openness' may be functioning as the same kind of thing in more distributed settings. Perhaps again it is really indicating a cultural format for thinking together globally and indicating an intended disposition towards each other (as much as towards any particular content).</p>
<p>I don't feel communication, however important, is really telling the whole story here. And I have a sense of 'openness' as the new 'community' with all those questions still unresolved about power relationships, expectations of each other, boundaries, different knowledges, ownership etc all still unresolved.</p>
<p>I guess I'm just questioning the concepts of community and openness regardless of the communication that happens within such frameworks. Does social media point us to other 'dispositional' and 'design' alternatives? Are they just as questionable in other more fractured ways of communicating?</p>
<p>Best wishes,</p>
<p>Nick,</p>
<p>Glasgow </p></p>https://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16719&parent=68629Learning in Communities of Inquiry: A Review of the Literaturehttps://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16719&parent=68627
Tue, 10 Jul 2012 04:10:08 GMTby Sylvia Currie. &nbsp;<p><p>It's vacation time for many in higher education, and I've received several email messages today from individuals with regrets that they are unable to participate in this discussion right now. (It's these personal connections that keep me inspired -- so thoughtful!)</p>
<p>One message was from Liam Rourke, and he reminded me about the systematic review of the CoI literature he conducted with Heather Kanuka: </p>
<p>Rourke, L., &amp; Kanuka, H. (2009). <a href="http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/474">Learning in Communities of Inquiry: A Review of the Literature</a>. Journal of Distance Education, 23, 19-48.</p>
<p>Cindy, of course, references this paper but I wanted to pop it to the top of the list. </p></p>https://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16719&parent=68627Re: a summary of my critique of CoIhttps://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16719&parent=68626
Tue, 10 Jul 2012 02:12:26 GMTby David Porter. &nbsp;<p><p>Thanks for bringing your critique and this discussion forum forward. I went to the article link and scrolled directly to the section on Practical Implications, quoted below...</p>
<p><em>"Practical Implications </em></p>
<p><em>The practical implications of my arguments concern what teacher and students should do in a conference to make it productive. The method described here responds to the fact that communication must be continuously and intentionally produced. It is not a natural event even in face-to-face contexts, much less in the far more fragile online environment. A face-to-face class starts and ends at a specified time and it is presumed to be more or less successful by default if the students show up and stay until the end. Online, a conversation easily ends if no one keeps it going. Failure is self-evident and commonplace. To maintain a continuous flow of conversation, the participants must keep working at it by posting comments that invite further posts. The flow of online conversation is an achievement, produced through a collective effort."</em></p>
<p>For me the paper makes good sense - online discussion is largely a communicative act, requiring continuous engagement to achieve a result. Got it. Agree.</p>
<p>I guess what I'm now looking for is how these principles are extended and enacted in an enhanced technical environment where new possibilities exist for enriching both the presentation of information and the facilitation of discussion.</p>
<p>Clearly the environment we are currently using is an artifact of the old days in which online discussion formats began. It as if the world of the academic paper and online discussions forums of 2001 are mirrored here. I think our students expect more and would already be yawning in a discussion environment like this.</p>
<p>Where to next, and how to we extend the known world of the discussion forum to inform brighter and more engaging futures for online academic communication? How do we model better discussion formats ourselves and share them with our students? It can't all be text, can it?</p>
<p>d.</p></p>https://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16719&parent=68626a summary of my critique of CoIhttps://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16719&parent=68625
Mon, 09 Jul 2012 18:47:56 GMTby Cindy Xin. &nbsp;<p><p>Thank you Sylvia for the introduction. To open the discussion I would like to attempt a partial summary of my critique of the community of inquiry framework (CoI). Sarah will follow to provide further thoughts. The full article is at <a href="http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/755/1333">http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/755/1333</a>. For those not familiar with CoI, I provide a summary description of the framework in my article. You should also refer to the original article -</p>
<p>Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., &amp; Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87−105.</p>
<p>My main arguments are three-fold. First, online discussion must be understood as foremost a communication phenomenon. Human communication is almost always multi-functional. In online discussions, we often combine instruction, intellectual exchange, and social interaction in a single utterance (as I am doing right now). Because of the multi-functionality of communication the three main aspects of CoI — cognitive presence, social presence and teaching presence — are intertwined. The distinction of these presences is useful for analyzing a conference after the fact, but they do not necessarily provide a participant the sense of what s/he should do in-situ when a conversation is in the making. This brings me to my next argument.</p>
<p>Online presence must be constructed through actual communicative acts that perform various social, pedagogical, and cognitive functions. By communicative acts I specifically refer to what Andrew Feenberg (1989) calls moderating functions. To create effective online presence, for example, a teacher must perform functions such as setting the agenda, recognition, prompting, and weaving. Performance of these communicative functions creates the context and atmosphere for discussion to continue. Desired states of affairs such as “open communication” and “group cohesion,” identified as two categories under CoI’s social presence, may or may not apply in any given situation. Participants must actively construct them via communicative acts. Online presence is an effect of what people do, i.e., their performance of communicative functions. By clarifying the nature of presence online, I wish to draw our attention to what leads to the presence of a participant or a thought or feeling.</p>
<p>The CoI model separates out the social dimension of communication. I argue that the social interaction between participants is essential to all communication, including intellectual exchange. Intense intellectual discussion depends on and produces social interaction no less than casual talk. Rather than attempting to isolate what is social as defined in CoI, I argue that the true sociality of online forums lies in the dynamics of discussion itself. Back and forth of discussion constitute what Gadamer (2004) calls the to-and-fro movement of the dialogue game. The game provides the intrinsic motives that draw participants into this movement and provoke their next move. The matrix of social interaction, itself extended in the course of discussion, provides the necessary context for continued engagement. </p>
<p>I invite you to share your reaction to these thoughts. If you find any of what I have said confusing, please say so, and feel free to ask any questions.</p>
<p>Cindy</p>
<p>References</p>
<p>Feenberg, A. (1989) The written world. In R. Mason &amp; A. Kaye (Eds.), <em>Mindweave: communication, computers, and distance education</em> (pp. 22-39). Oxford: Pergamon.</p>
<p>Gadamer, H.G. (2004). <em>Truth and method</em> (2nd ed). London ; New York : Continuum.</p></p>https://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16719&parent=68625Welcome to Revisiting the Community of Inquiry Frameworkhttps://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16718&parent=68624
Mon, 09 Jul 2012 05:01:38 GMTby Sylvia Currie. &nbsp;<p><p class="p1"><span class="s1">Welcome to <span class="s2"><a href="http://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/view.php?id=8981">Revisiting the Community of Inquiry Framework</a>.</span></span></p>
<p class="p3"><b>About this seminar</b></p>
<p class="p4">I'd like to add a personal note about this seminar. Back in 2001, as coordinator for the <a href="http://globaleducators.net/">Global Educators Network</a>, I helped to organize a 4-part Community of Inquiry series, introducing the social, cognitive, and teacher presence theoretical framework by Terry Anderson, Liam Rourke, Randy Garrison, &amp; Walter Archer. Each facilitator took on a topic for one week: critical thinking, content analysis, text-based learning, and teaching presence. The discussions were thought-provoking then (I'll post the archive!), and the work continues to be important today. So here we are, over a decade later, looking back at that conversation and all that has happened in between. On the topic of online discussions, we have a lot to talk about!</p>
<p class="p4"><b>Seminar Description</b>: Since its original publication, Garrison, Anderson and Archer’s (2000) “Critical Inquiry in A Text-based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education” has inspired a great many researchers and advanced our understanding of online learning and online education. In recent years, a number of reviews of the Community of Inquiry framework (CoI) have been published, including, Garrison and Arbaugh’s (2007), Swan and Ice (2010). Cindy Xin, author of a recently-published critique (Xin, 2012) will be with us to explain her argument and, together with Sarah Haavind, facilitate a discussion reconsidering the CoI and its recent reviews and critiques. By provoking new thoughts and possibly constructing new theories and methods, we hope to further our understanding of online discussion in particular, and online education in general.</p>
<p class="p4">There is a bit of background reading, but it's optional of course! It is listed <a href="http://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/view.php?id=8981">in the forum description</a>.</p>
<p class="p3"><b>About our facilitators</b></p>
<p class="p3">Both Cindy Xin and Sarah Haavind have facilitated SCoPE seminars in the past:</p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Cindy: <a href="http://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/view.php?f=54"><span class="s2">Supporting and Advancing Online Dialogue: May 7-27, 2007</span></a></span></p>
<p class="p1">Sarah (with Nancy White): <a href="http://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/view.php?f=84">SCoPE Seminar: Informal Learning: May 15 - June 4, 2006</a></p>
<p class="p3">and now they return to facilitate a seminar…together! </p>
<p class="p3">Cindy Xin is an Educational Consultant with Simon Fraser University's Teaching and Learning Centre and Adjunct Professor in the Faculty of Education. <span class="s3">For the past 15 years </span>she has been involved in research on discourse processes and collaborative inquiries in web-based environments, and the in development of open source technologies to improve online discussion forums.</p>
<p class="p4"><span class="s4">Sarah Haavind is Associate Professor at </span>Lesley University School of Education in Cambridge Massachusetts. Her dissertation at Harvard Graduate School of Education looked at collaborative dialogue in Virtual High School courses. Sarah is co-author of "Facilitating Online Learning: Effective Strategies for Moderators" (2000, Atwood).</p>
<p class="p3"><b>Participating in SCoPE seminars</b></p>
<p class="p3">SCoPE seminars are free and open to the public, and registration is not required. You are welcome to come and go according to your schedule and interests. To contribute you will need to create an account on the SCoPE site -- a quick process. Are you new to SCoPE or wondering how to manage your participation? <a href="http://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/resource/view.php?id=1921">Check this resource</a>.</p>
<p class="p3">If you're a Diigo or Delicious user we can round up our resources pertaining to this seminar topic by using the tags 'scope seminar' and 'coi'. In Diigo you may choose to share to the <a href="http://groups.diigo.com/group/scopecommunity">SCoPE group</a>.</p>
<p class="p3">If you have any questions about participating in SCoPE don't hesitate to ask here in the forum, or get in touch with me directly:</p>
<p class="p3">Sylvia Currie<br />scurrie@bccampus.ca <br />skype:webbedfeat <br />+1 250-318-2907</p></p>https://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16718&parent=68624